Welcome to UO Community Forum
Register now to gain access to all of our features. Once registered and logged in, you will be able to create topics, post replies to existing threads, give reputation to your fellow members, get your own private messenger, post status updates, manage your profile and so much more. If you already have an account, login here - otherwise create an account for free today!

Javascript Disabled Detected

You currently have javascript disabled. Several functions may not work. Please re-enable javascript to access full functionality.

UO Infantry Basics part 6: Urban Combat

Fox D

Posted 2015-08-31 @ 07:15

Sorry Fox, too late. Tried it with a fireteam sized element of trained players (colleagues) with whom I do stuff like that more often.

We randomly placed AI in buildings and attempted to clear them. As we walked in the room (even when stacked) the AI had enough time to react and wound 1 and kill one of our team.

We retried in another building, that time in combat pace.

We all used Rambos techniques. Plus going in guns up + combat pace worked brilliant. We cleared the whole building of 6 ENY AI w/o taking a single shot where we before didn't even get close to the third room.

Stamina proved to be a problem though as soon as a building got more than 4 rooms.

secured stamina breaks where necessary especially for the AR.

Kind regards

Pax

Did you cut the cake? You turn at the same speed regardless of whether you are running or not so by all logic taking it slow should mean you live longer.

Posted 2015-08-31 @ 11:37

Morluck

Posted 2015-08-31 @ 14:39

Morluck

Members

ARMA 3 breaching tactics should focus on establishing fire superiority. Pieing corners is one of the best methods to limit the enemies capable fire power when initially establishing yours. In enclosed spaces though, such as tight hallways, alleyways or doorways, a faster pace of assault is oftentimes necessary to prevent a fireteam to squad size wipe. Realistically, the defenders of a breech are limited physically with impromptu battle positions consisting, of bullet permeable-concealment more so than cover, that results in a lack of space during a firefight to properly manage their equipment in the form of reloading and grenades. Generally ARMA buildings lack furniture, which reduces the enemy concealment choices but removes the predictability of a defender's location that is caused by the lack of space. Both reloading and grenades are consistently usable and effective in all environments because of the robotic nature of ARMA's gunplay. Overall Rambo's video is a good example of adapting to the physical limitations provided to us by videogames in general. Rye though makes a great point about focusing to much on specific tactics, the example given being stacking, being detrimental to gameplay.

From my personal narrative, it seems magdumps and grenades are the largest danger in CQC building-clearing followed by slow attrition due to causalities halting the advance. Both the recoil of weapons and grenades are easier to control than their real life counterparts making mass casualty breeches much more likely. One aspect of stacking I would like to see change is the AR being designated to cover the door as it opens from either one side or the direct front instead of the pointman who is instead should be given the task to open the door from the unoccupied side. Unless players are using the (ACE?) feature to slowly open doors, ARMA functionally opens doors almost instantly, and having the door covered with maximum firepower before opening it can lead to immediate dominance of the easy-corners by utilizing both the PM's and AR's firepower where in real life executing such a tactic is difficult. My final note is that for players to be situationally aware, this range from keeping communication flowing in tough to PID scenarios to considering attempting to shoot enemies through walls as being surprised can be the most detrimental.

PaxJaromeMalues

Posted 2015-09-01 @ 12:26

I give +1 for the grenades. And its true, I am still not using grenades due to the bad experiences i made with them years ago I shoudl learn to use these more often.

@SadGuy: Yes I was talking about the speed after the initial parts that can be seen from the door were cleared and we tried to get as many guns into the room as possible in the shortest amount of time.

I thin to add a combat pace in vanilla was a great idea by BIS. We should use it more often in appropriate situations.

Fox D

Posted 2015-09-01 @ 12:41

Fox D

Members

I give +1 for the grenades. And its true, I am still not using grenades due to the bad experiences i made with them years ago I shoudl learn to use these more often.

@SadGuy: Yes I was talking about the speed after the initial parts that can be seen from the door were cleared and we tried to get as many guns into the room as possible in the shortest amount of time.

I thin to add a combat pace in vanilla was a great idea by BIS. We should use it more often in appropriate situations.

More guns does not necessarily mean a better clearance. Most rooms will require only 2 men to clear. 90% of the time any more than this and you will just get in each others way

keOpi's video is an excellent example of what not to do when clearing a building/room

PaxJaromeMalues

Posted 2015-09-01 @ 13:10

Rye

Posted 2015-09-01 @ 19:45

Rye

Members

LocationAustralia

Grenade answers snip...

That answered all my questions. In nearly all entries I have made a grenade does the job. There are three schools of thought: 1. Grenade goes off, make entry ("shock" arguments, effectiveness of grenade arguments, etc). 2. Grenade goes off, limited entry or "wait-out" before immediate entry (safety arguments, confirmation of grenade effectiveness, dust clearance arguments, etc). 3. Grenade goes off but there is still obvious enemy activity e.g. shooting at the doorway, then pull out and make a decision, i.e. blow the room sky-high (risk vs benefit arguments, barricaded "fixed in place" arguments, stand-off attack arguments, etc). You lean towards 1.

I suppose it all depends on context. I mean yesterday I was messing around on a CQB template map and multiple grenades in the room didn't always stop enemy. Why? Rooms can be big and full of barricades like half-walls or interconnecting rooms. As long as people don't see it as a "fix-all" solution then all good. Some of the buildings with little projections poking out are notorious for this on the vanilla maps. If you take cover in those little areas you can survive grenades for the most part. This happens so much on modes like KOTH it's frustrating. I also have a real-life example of this if anyone is interested but I'd rather stick to ArmA only.

More guns does not necessarily mean a better clearance. Most rooms will require only 2 men to clear.

keOpi's video is an excellent example of what not to do when clearing a building/room

Exactly this. More people in the room can equal more people dead. Half the time by the time third man gets to the entrypoint, the threat has already been killed. In some cases pointman has already killed the threat. Triangulation of fire in this aspect is not always seen.

There is no golden rule around how many enter a room. For the most part entries that look to get as many people in the room as possible are known as floods. You may hear this term with room floods, wall floods (strongwalling), etc. Law Enforcement have different terms like threat swarm, swarming, etc, if you have heard of it any different. Flooding a room is done for a reason. Therefore it isn't always the go-to method.

What matters more than any bullshit "golden rules" is understanding the concepts, the normal entry process, the way entries work when they meet resistance and human behaviour. There are not a lot of instructional videos out there to tell you about any of this and looking at real-life videos will only give you snippets of information - often confusing people as to why it is used and in what context. The biggest example as I have mentioned before is stacking. Everyone thinks you stack everywhere. Then you get people stacking in a contested hallway or street. They're mowed down. Eek.

PaxJaromeMalues

Posted 2015-09-02 @ 07:28

PaxJaromeMalues

Donating Members

LocationGermany, Kiel

What matters more than any bullshit "golden rules" is understanding the concepts, the normal entry process, the way entries work when they meet resistance and human behaviour. There are not a lot of instructional videos out there to tell you about any of this and looking at real-life videos will only give you snippets of information - often confusing people as to why it is used and in what context. The biggest example as I have mentioned before is stacking. Everyone thinks you stack everywhere. Then you get people stacking in a contested hallway or street. They're mowed down. Eek.

Can not confirm.

Having the concept explained to me and then looking at real life examples (which we are trying to simulate to some certain degree - shouldn't forget this) who are trained to use these is, at least for me, very helpful to understand these concepts and their place in the greater good. Indeed there seem to be many ways units out of different branches would clear structures (f.e. law enforcement vs us marines vs special forces for hostage rescue) but why should one concentrate on SF or LE examples? We are simulating (mostly) regular Army or Marines. Who then greps videos with material displaying a completely unrelated branch has his problems elsewhere I presume?!

F.i. I thought it was interesting to see the second video and how the remaining forces currently not clearing any structures were covering every direction and place around the building being cleared. I think that would be a way of thinking and acting that we should def. adapt for use on the primary as we usually do way to less cover than our actions actually require. Often our ways to cover others are also badly implemented.

Looking at the new AAR tool we got you can see how most of our losses are caused by:

Fox D

Posted 2015-09-02 @ 10:16

Fox D

Members

Can not confirm.

Having the concept explained to me and then looking at real life examples (which we are trying to simulate to some certain degree - shouldn't forget this) who are trained to use these is, at least for me, very helpful to understand these concepts and their place in the greater good. Indeed there seem to be many ways units out of different branches would clear structures (f.e. law enforcement vs us marines vs special forces for hostage rescue) but why should one concentrate on SF or LE examples? We are simulating (mostly) regular Army or Marines. Who then greps videos with material displaying a completely unrelated branch has his problems elsewhere I presume?!

F.i. I thought it was interesting to see the second video and how the remaining forces currently not clearing any structures were covering every direction and place around the building being cleared. I think that would be a way of thinking and acting that we should def. adapt for use on the primary as we usually do way to less cover than our actions actually require. Often our ways to cover others are also badly implemented.

Looking at the new AAR tool we got you can see how most of our losses are caused by:

beta

Posted 2015-09-02 @ 16:28

beta

Donating Regulars

Pretty much all of UO CQB training revolves around clearing the room. Clearing the room is the last step of a very complex and difficult process. There are many other things that need to happen and be in place before you can put that 2 or 4 man stack into the room, and skipping out on that stuff generally gets your stack killed.

PaxJaromeMalues

Posted 2015-09-02 @ 17:16

PaxJaromeMalues

Donating Members

LocationGermany, Kiel

beta: and skipping out on that stuff generally gets your stack killed.

Yes. One can observe this regulary on the server. Instead of watching their sectors, they all stare at the door like it'll let gold coins rain on them. Same with simply covering alleys when crossing them or being there longer as a view seconds. Pretty much nobody does the small stuff that is actually quiet necessary.

Do a CQB course. Thawk's was a good success. I don't see why not.

If someone would provide a course I would happily enlist as long as it is in my timezone, if I understood you correct.

Fox D

Posted 2015-09-02 @ 17:33

Playing on the server tonight during The Raid on Zargabad and a technical (or ********) rolled up on the security element outside the gate and proceeded to gun them all down at point blank range

Actually to be 100% accurate the 2nd technical gunned them all down, the first did a drive by and everyone kept looking in the direction it had disappeared in, the 2nd one then rolled up and gunned them all down.

Moral of the story? Watch your arcs! This could have been avoided if someone had of just watched up the street like they were supposed to!

Whiplash

Posted 2015-09-03 @ 07:45

Whiplash

Members

[...]

Actually to be 100% accurate the 2nd technical gunned them all down, the first did a drive by and everyone kept looking in the direction it had disappeared in, the 2nd one then rolled up and gunned them all down.

[...]

Off topic: To be even more accurate, the first technical dropped me as part of the northern security element/ blocking force. Just before Jimbo managed to drop the gunner. But the timing was perfect... We had engine sounds coming from the north and were expecting contacts to move right around the northern corner when that technical appeared from our six out of nowhere (engine sound was covered by the trucks closing in from the north).

I would agree with the above said. Although this is not only applicable to the CQB portion of the game and thus it might be kinda off topic, but watching and covering ones arcs and the area you are responsible is really missing on the server most of the times. Usually people just watch the direction of the confirmed enemies so that they won't miss out on shooting them. Hardly anyone sticks to his corner when nothing is going on there for a few seconds. You also rarely see someone watching the rear of the friendlies (situation dependent of course).

@Rambo2: Nice video! Keep making them if possible. Those videos combined with more active trainings again would definitely be a step in the right direction to improve gameplay.